Irreducible complexity- the challenges have been rebutted (if not refuted)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:Understand that a pathway has been demonstrated by Doolittle? It has been done. Either address a mistake in the Miller expanded section or stop whining that this hasn't been done. THIS IS NOT THE ONE THAT BEHE ADDRESSES IN YOUR LINK--YOU WOULD KNOW THIS IF YOU WERE READING ANYTHING!My goodness, do you understand that the piece by Behe that you cite accepts Doolittle's evidence as common descent? Do you read what you cite?

quote:

---

There is a theory regarding Creation- you just choose to ignore it. Huge difference. The link to the true origins provided falsifications for it.

---

Identify it.

From Larry's link to the Miller article:"Can we know for sure that this is how blood clotting (or any other biochemical system) evolved? The strict answer, of course, is we cannot. The best we can hope from our vertebrate ancestors are fossils that preserve bits and pieces of their form and structure, and it might seem that their biochemistry would be lost forever. But that's not quite true. Today's organisms are the descendents of that biological (and biochemical) past, and they provide a perfect opportunity to test these ideas."John Paul:
Miller assumes the ToE is indicative of reality in order to reach his conclusions. Hardly objective.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
before[/b] I don't care what Behe accepts. He has shown there isn't any substantiating evidence for the step-by-step Darwinian process and that is the point.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------There is a theory regarding Creation- you just choose to ignore it. Huge difference. The link to the true origins provided falsifications for it.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
Identify it.John Paul:
Been there, done that. All you are going to do & continue to do is to handwave it away.Let's see we have Variation under Domestication; Variation under Nature; Struggle for Existence; Natural Selection; etc. Sound familiar? It should. The Creation model of biological evolution is very similar to what Darwin wrote without his faulty conclusion based on un-substatiated extrapolation.Here's a prediction- without intelligent intervention a procaryotic organism will always remain a procaryotic organism; a virus will always remain a virus. Guess what? All experiments to date have fulfilled those predictions. Go figure...------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-09-2002]

---

Larry writes:
My goodness, do you understand that the piece by Behe that you cite accepts Doolittle's evidence as common descent? Do you read what you cite?

---

---

John Paul replies:
Yes I read what I cite and I like I said before I don't care what Behe accepts.

---

I think I see what Larry is getting at. If I can explain by analogy, you can repair a Dodge with parts from a Chevy, but you'll run into lots of problems with parts that don't fit, and those require some extra work. You can borrow from Behe, but some parts don't fit with your views, and you need to address those issues. Is that it, Larry?--Percy

Percy:
I think I see what Larry is getting at. If I can explain by analogy, you can repair a Dodge with parts from a Chevy, but you'll run into lots of problems with parts that don't fit, and those require some extra work.John Paul:
You know how I would repair a dodge or a chevy? I would go out and buy a Buick! Percy:
You can borrow from Behe, but some parts don't fit with your views, and you need to address those issues.John Paul:
Why is that? Why do I have to address what Behe believes? What he accepts or believes flies in the face of what he presents. Why shouldn't Behe be the one to address those issues?Percy:
Is that it, Larry?John Paul:
To me, both of you are 'barking up the wrong tree'...------------------
John Paul

Yes, Percy, in general. More than that in this case though. The specific source that he cites as evidence that deals with Doolittle's work doesn't refute it in relation to common descent--indeed Behe embraces the Doolittle work as evidence of common descent, but attempts to rebut it in relation to natural selection.Of course, all of this is irrelevant to the cited source of Miller's expanded piece that deals with a more thorough description of Doolittle's work that Behe never addresses.Why Behe is wrong in relation to it being evidence for common descent would be minimally necessary to clear up. This should have been done when he first cited it.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Miller assumes the ToE is indicative of reality in order to reach his conclusions. Hardly objective.

---

He has tested his hypothesis. He shouldn’t be objective, he should be supportive of the evidence which supported his hypothesis. And his assumption is fully reasonable given that his assumption has been repeatedly tested.

quote:

---

John Paul:
LOL! Where was the demonstration? Just because someone can put a hypothetical down on paper doesn't mean it has been demonstrated.

---

Let’s review. First, Behe makes the inference of ID based on IC systems. He does so by saying it is impossible for natural selection to account for specific systems including the vertebrate blood clotting system and makes an extraordinary claim that there is no way for such a system to evolve in a system of random mutation and natural selection. Now, that means if one can find a specific pathway that is not impossible by means of random mutation and natural selection, the inference by Behe is incorrect.You have not substantively challenged the Miller piece as cited to you. Please do so.Now, in relation to whether it occurred in the specific manner that Miller discusses based on Doolittle’s work, it could be wrong, but the genetic evidence is perfectly consistent with it. However, the existence of such a pathway falsifies Behe’s claim.

quote:

---

John Paul:
You are repeating yourself. I read Behe and I read your link. Nothing has been demonstrated. No amount of shouting will change that. Sure a hypothetical has been presented and that is a start- but that is all it is.

---

Yes, but a possibly pathway is all that is required to falsify Behe’s inference. Do you understand this? His argument is based upon the impossibility of such an occurrence. If it isn’t impossible, Behe doesn’t have an argument anymore.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Yes I read what I cite and I like I said before I don't care what Behe accepts. He has shown there isn't any substantiating evidence for the step-by-step Darwinian process and that is the point.

---

You have two recurring problems here.1) To accept IC as a valid inference, you must provide an impossible system in regards to evolution. Behe claims blood clotting is impossible. His ‘theory’ is based on there being no possible route and a falsification of his theory is providing a potential pathway. A potential pathway is made clear by Miller, and you haven’t addressed that pathway. You keep referring to Behe who doesn’t address the particular pathway in the cited article. So either you can address that detailed pathway based on Doolittle’s work or Behe’s argument in relation to vertebrate blood clotting is falsified. Additionally, Doolittle’s work does support the specific path, though somewhat weakly. Being the best evidence it would be the default explanation.2) You are claiming that Behe is wrong in relation to common descent, but you are attempting to use him to provide a falsification of evolution. But the very evidence that you claim can be used to falsify evolution, is used by Behe to support common descent. You need to identify why he is wrong and falsify the evidence. Here you are disagreeing with Behe and Doolittle, but offer no substantive response. How is Behe wrong? Based on what evidence is he wrong? What alternative theories fit?

quote:

---

John Paul:
Been there, done that. All you are going to do & continue to do is to handwave it away.

​

Let's see we have Variation under Domestication; Variation under Nature; Struggle for Existence; Natural Selection; etc. Sound familiar? It should. The Creation model of biological evolution is very similar to what Darwin wrote without his faulty conclusion based on un-substatiated extrapolation.

---

So operationalize it. You claim there is a hypothesis in there. Identify the specific hypothesis, what confirming evidence is available and what a potential falsification is. This should not already be falsified.

quote:

---

Why is that? Why do I have to address what Behe believes? What he accepts or believes flies in the face of what he presents. Why shouldn't Behe be the one to address those issues?

---

Behe does address those issues. He argues that the evidence Doolittle (in the Doolittle argument you cited, not me) presents is evidence of common descent, but not of natural selection. He accepts the evidence as consistent and clear evidence of common descent.Now, you are trying to claim it isn't evidence of evolution in any way and that isn't evidence of common descent. But this contradicts what you cited. So either you can identify why Behe and Doolittle's arguments are wrong, or the arguments stand.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------John Paul:
You are repeating yourself. I read Behe and I read your link. Nothing has been demonstrated. No amount of shouting will change that. Sure a hypothetical has been presented and that is a start- but that is all it is.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
Yes, but a possibly pathway is all that is required to falsify Behe’s inference.John Paul:
Just because something looks 'possible' on paper doesn't make it so.Larry:
Do you understand this?John Paul:
Yes. Do you understand what I just said?Larry:
His argument is based upon the impossibility of such an occurrence. If it isn’t impossible, Behe doesn’t have an argument anymore.John Paul:
True. So all that is needed is to take the idea off of the paper and into the lab where it can be demonstrated. Lacking that element (demonstration- as in observe, test, repeat & verify), all are left with are 'cuddas'. As in "It cudda happened this way". To me that is not very scientific.The problem, as I see it, is not only was the blood cascade changing, so was the organism. Where is the evidence that mutations can occur in such a way to accomplish this? (we can save that for another thread, which would be best. Just something for you to keep in the back of your mind)------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
You are repeating yourself. I read Behe and I read your link. Nothing has been demonstrated. No amount of shouting will change that. Sure a hypothetical has been presented and that is a start- but that is all it is.

​

Larry:
Yes, but a possibly pathway is all that is required to falsify Behe’s inference.

​

John Paul:
Just because something looks 'possible' on paper doesn't make it so.

---

True. However, when you compare something that is possible on paper with something that is impossible on paper, which do you run with?

edge:
True. However, when you compare something that is possible on paper with something that is impossible on paper, which do you run with?John Paul:
You take the one that you think is possible on paper and see if it is possible in reality. Until that happens no one can make the determination of 'possibility'. Thinking something is possible (just because it may 'work' on paper) is very different from showing it to be possible.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

John Paul:
You are repeating yourself. I read Behe and I read your link. Nothing has been demonstrated. No amount of shouting will change that. Sure a hypothetical has been presented and that is a start- but that is all it is.

---

Fine, we’ll do this the hard way.What is it about Behe’s argument you don’t understand? Behe makes an argument based on the impossibility of evolution accounting for blood clotting. Agreed? If not, explain how you would characterize Behe’s argument.If so, a possible pathway invalidates his argument and IC is irrelevant to any discussion of ID.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Just because something looks 'possible' on paper doesn't make it so.

---

Just because something looks impossible on paper doesn’t make it so. You don’t seem to grasp a very elemental part of Behe’s argument. He claims, on paperwith no lab work to support himthat evolution couldn’t provide a pathway. A pathway is possible and has been cited to you. This falsifies Behe’s contention. You havent’ taken issue with anything in the Miller piece regarding blood clotting except to reference an article that doesn’t address it either.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Yes. Do you understand what I just said?

---

Yes, but you haven’t provided anything to critique the Doolittle scenario so I’m not sure what you are claiming besides you don’t like it because it contradicts what you want to believe.

quote:

---

John Paul:
True. So all that is needed is to take the idea off of the paper and into the lab where it can be demonstrated. Lacking that element (demonstration- as in observe, test, repeat & verify), all are left with are 'cuddas'. As in "It cudda happened this way". To me that is not very scientific.

---

Science doesn’t rely solely on fully controlled experiments. Indeed, you are invalidating entire fields of science including hydrology, geology, astronomy, etc with your claims it does. It requires five steps:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000Experiments are nice when possible because they reduce the number of variables and allow one to easily manipulate those variables. Quasi-experimental methods and good research design are fine though in other cases. You should have me teaching you the scientific method because you would understand it much better than whomever attempted it the first time. To you that may not be very scientific, but that is irrelevant since science never makes the requirement you are trying to impose.

quote:

---

The problem, as I see it, is not only was the blood cascade changing, so was the organism. Where is the evidence that mutations can occur in such a way to accomplish this? (we can save that for another thread, which would be best. Just something for you to keep in the back of your mind)

---

It has already been provided to you. Would you care to read it or not? I’m growing tired of repeating myself.

John Paul,What experiment did Behe run to determine it was impossible? Please cite the journal article it appeared in.Thanks,
Larry